If size isn't a paramount concern then buy the largest CCDs you can afford! That puts the 1/3" 3CCD GY-DV300U at the top of the list. The GY-DV300U is hands down the best cam in low light of the cams you mentioned and it has dual XLR inputs. The only thing it doesn't have is a quality 16:9 mode like the PDX10 and GS400. The GY-DV300U will have a lot of features not found on smaller CCD cams like a selectable neutral density filter.

I second what Tommy said. It's a steal.

Checkout the cheaper 3 chip Panasonics. Optura's are also a safe bet. Sony's are nice too, each brand has models capable of shooting true 16:9, which would look good for your type of production.

I have similar intentions too. Just quietly building a portfolio if I ever decide to goto a film school or something. I started off using my brother's miniDV Sony camcorder and eventually purchased my Panasonic.

If you have to settle on a cheaper camera you feel you may be dissapointed with in the future, don't fret. Save up for better audio equitment and spend a lot of time looking into how you can improve your shots in the post-processing with software. Adequate lighting and audio is more important than video quality when everything is said and done.

Thanks. I would like to have the 16x9 option, as I would probably switch to that in the future as more cameras offer that standard. I need low-light because I'll be shooting in mostly dimly lit bars/club venues, and would certainly want to have some sort of film like feature (like the "frame movie" mode on the GL2. The JVC does sound good but I have never heard on anyone reccomending it before. Should I definitely buy one of these cameras brand new, or should I look at some used ones too, maybe a Sony PD150? I just hate not knowing exactly what I should I get, seeing as how this will be a huge purchase for me. Thanks again!

p.s. Does the JVC XLR inputs provide phantom power?

maybe a Sony PD150?

That will give you good low light response, but pretty poor 16:9. In your price range it will be hard to get both I'm afraid. The PDX-10 works fine for me shooting stage shows that are pretty dark. It has 14 bit DSP which means you can boost gain around 9db without much noticeable image noise. +12dB is generally usable too, +15dB shows noise, but may be OK depending on what you expect. +18dB starts getting ugly though.

The PDX-10 is about 2.5 f-stops slower than the PD-150, but this is offset by the cleaner gain boost. So adding 9dB of gain can make up for almost 1.5 of those f-stops, and practically speaking the difference between these two cameras may be closer to one f-stop. This comes from my personal experience shooting with a VX-2000 and PDX-10 in similar situations. Your mileage may vary.

Buying used is certainly a way to save some money, IF you know what you're getting into. But the warranty on a new camera plus that fact that it doesn't have any mileage on it yet are a big plus IMO...

I am looking for a new camera. I am going to do my research this time instead of walking into BestBuy like last year. My price range is $1000-$1500. I am shooting mostly wakeboarding and snowboarding. I edit with premier pro and after effects 6.5. I am looking for a 3ccd camera.

I have been thinking about the panasonic pv-gs400. Most of the complaints about this camera have been about its low light performance which really shouldn't effect me.

I also have a question about 16:9 format. On some websites I have seen people complaining that the camera's don't actually shoot in 16:9 and that the image is distorted when displayed on a widescreen TV. Any info on this topic as well is greatly appreciated.

Thanks ahead of time for the help.

Joe

What about a Panasonic DVX100a?

What about a Panasonic DVX100a?
Can you get this camera for $1500?

Two sites say you can.

Digitalliguidators.com

and

usa photo nation

Dont use either of those retailers. Check them on resellerratings.com. They are crooks. Buy from the sponsors of this site.

what about royal camera?

You can't buy a new dvx100a in the United states for less than about $3000. Period.

As you are discovering, it requires a huge investment in time to figure out what you actually need and where to get the best price for what you finally decide you want. Whew.... Glad I'm finally done with that process.

Max is right. Check out every internet site on resellers.com before you purchase from them. They have customer ratings and reviews. Very helpful although a tiny bit confusing to navigate.

I have included a link to the New York Better Business Bureau which describes "Gray Goods". Those resellers that are selling at abnormally low prices are more than likely selling grays which, if you read the article, aren't such a wise investment. http://www.newyork.bbb.org/library/publications/subrep45.html

Not to knock the Big Apple, but most of the gray market dealers are located in New York. But so are every legitimate reseller that I purchased from.

Just be careful out there and do the research.

Stephanie

Try B&H, one of this site's sponsors as well as Zotz Digital.
B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com
http://www.zotzdigital.com/

B&H prices should be very close to the lowest price you can actually get.

Thanks for the help with that. The grey goods article cleared up alot of questions.

To get back to the original topic.

How the the picture on the GL2. I can get a new one from B&W for $2000, or I know I guy here that will sell me one for $1000 that he has had for 3 years, but has hardly been used.

Any coments on the GL2 are greatly appreciated. Also if there are any video clips online of footage shot with the GL2, that would be nice. Thanks

Joe

How would the Canon GL2 compair to the Panasonic pv-gs400?

They are falling into a similar price range.

Thanks

I can't make a comparison because I'm not familiar with the Panasonic pv-gs400. I can say that I've shot several hundred hours of tape with my GL2 and been very happy with the results. About half of it has been interviews in controlled environments and the other half has been performances on stage shooting from the back row of the audience. My only complaint - which is unfortunately not rare among GL2 users - is that I get the Eject the Cassette errors from time to time. (Look in the GL2 area for more on that.) I didn't get it at all for the first year though and can often predict when I'm likely to get it now so I avoid those situations when I can and grab a different camera when I can't. In spite of that I don't regret the purchase. The optics are good, the control over the image quality is good, it's light weight, and not intimidating to my subjects.

Thanks for the opinion on the GL2

I have comprised a list on camera's that interest my and I am willing to splurge on from B&W's. I have read the reviews of the cameras on camcorderinfo.com

Any opinions compairing and contrasting these camera's would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help in advance.

panasonic pv-gs400
Panasonic AG-DVC30
jvc GR-HD1
jvc-DV300U
canon GL-2

Please keep in mind that the camera will be used almost entirely outside in a well light enviornment on a fast moving subject. For people not familiar with wakeboarding, here is a trailer to a video.

http://www.wakeworld.com/galleries/getimage.asp?galleryid=300&imageid=31

Joe

I would recommend the optura xi, I'm not sure what your budget is but you can get one for around 800.

I forgot what a pain it is to find a camcorder on a certain buget, reading reviews sucks, researching blah blah blah. Can you guys help me out here. I just basically need it for capture. Pass through option would be cool, 16bit audio. $350 buget.

Don't you always get 16bit Audio if you record in 16bit?

Hi

I have a VX2000 and am very happy with the results of my effost with it, but I'm looking for a small camera, 3CCD or single chip, that will give me real 16:9 and footage that could be interpolated with the Sony VX in widescreen mode. Being very inexperienced can anyone suggest what the smallest camera I could get would be?

thanks

Michael McGlynn

perhaps you can get a true 16:9 adapter thats made for the vx2k? That way theres no need for a new camera, especially if the only new feature you're looking for is true 16:9 ...

Try getting a Sony PDX10, it's a great little 16:9 camera.

Hi

I've been looking for a camera to buy and well I have no idea what all the specs mean. I found this forum yesterday and hopefully someone can clarify some questions.

The reason I'm looking for a camcorder is to shot tennis player strokes like the serve, forehand, backhand, etc and be able to go slow motion without much skipping. The resolution should be pretty nice. I used my dad's camera before and it looked great on TV, but when I transfered it to the computer it was horribile.

Anyway is shutter speed the thing I need to look for to see more frames per second so that I can see slow motion better?

Also, what is the spec to look for when I want high resolution? Seems like none of the sites list video resolution.. which of these cameras would be the best, 2nd best? And how can I tell which one has the best resolution of these three.. any other recommendations without 800-1200 price range?

Sony DCR-PC1000
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=DCRPC1000&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_MiniDVHandycamCamcorders

Sony DCR-HC90
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=DCRHC90&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_MiniDVHandycamCamcorders

Canon Optura 500
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=166&modelid=10222

I really have no experience with cameras in this price range, but can help a little with the specs. All NTSC DV cameras, regardless of price, shoot at the same resolution which is 720 pixels wide by 480 high. Most in this price range will have a single CCD, or possibly 3 tiny ones. As long as you're going with good companies like Canon and Sony I don't think you'll see much of a difference in the amount of image detail. The 3 CCD cameras may render color better, probably not much of a factor in your application.

All NTSC DV cameras also capture 30 frames per second regardless of their cost. Each frame has two fields that contain the odd and even lines of the image. So the fields are 1/60 second apart and combine to represent a 1/30 second slice of time. With fast motion - like a tennis swing - the images in the odd and even fields won't quite match since they are captured 1/60 sec apart. When combined into the 480 line image you will see a jagged effect around the moving arm and racquet for example.

Yes, adjustable shutter speed can help, but only within these limits. The default would be to capture one of these video fields for 1/60 sec sixty times each second. Now you could increase the shutter speed to 1/1000 sec if you like, but you will end up exposing each filed for 1/1000 sec sixty times per second. This may give a little clearer image, although the odd and even lines in each of the 1/30 sec frames will look even more different (more of the jagged effect). In this example, picture the following timeline:

0.001 seconds: capture lines 1-3-5-7-9-11-13, etc in 1/1000 sec
0.016 seconds: wait
0.017 seconds: capture lines 2-4-6-8-10-12. etc in 1/1000 sec
0.033 seconds: wait
-------
0.033 seconds = 1/30 sec

Sorry, but spending more money won't really buy you any more frames per second if that's what you're after....

Thanks for the quick response.. Can you or anyone here tell me how expensive the camera that took this small video clip would cost?

http://advancedtennis.com/atrp/guga.htm

I just don't know enough about tennis or sports photography to be much help. Just offhand that looks like it was shot faster than 30 fps however. Perhaps it was a Varicam which costs $$$$$ ? There are also special purpose cameras for shooting high speed video, I think they're expensive too.

You might look into a film camera, possibly one that can be overcranked to more than 30 frames per second?

Thanks again for the help. One last question .. Hope I'm not bugging too much :)

Since you mentioned that all those standard NTSC camcorders are the same resolution 720x480.. If i purchased an 1080i HDV camcorder would the resolution be 1920x1080 once I download it onto the computer?

-Tony

Tony,

You did not say exactly how you were going to use it or how long.

I noticed that one of the cameras you were looking at was about $1,300.00. For that price you could probably pick up a used JVC JYHD-10U, or JVC GR-HD1US. Both of these are High Definition cameras and capable of shooting 720P, which is progressive. Progressive is full frame and not interlaced, making it much better for slow motion because each frame is full and not just half a frame, (non-interlaced). The JY-HD10U I know shoots SD in 1/60 fps progressive too, which may be easier for you to use without additional software. This would be 60 full frames per second, not 60 half frames per second, and you could use a higher shutter speed also to help even more.

Many many others on this forum are much more knowledgable on this subject than I, and I hope they respond to this too. But, shooting in progressive mode will help a lot.

If you want to try it out, maybe you could rent one!

I hope that I helped and did not give you any misinformation or confused even further. Anyone else?

Good Luck,

Mike

Tony,

I did not get my post in before your last one. 1080i is higher definition, but again interlaced, hence the i after the 1080i. I think most would agree that progressive would be better for slow motion. Just remember that any High Definition filming, 1080i or 720p would probably require you to spend much more on software to capture it to your computer. Your computer may already alow you to capture SD, but you should check.

Mike

Tony,

I did not get my post in before your last one. 1080i is higher definition, but again interlaced, hence the i after the 1080i. I think most would agree that progressive would be better for slow motion. Just remember that any High Definition filming, 1080i or 720p would probably require you to spend much more on software to capture it to your computer. Your computer may already alow you to capture SD, but you should check.

Mike

Hmm I didn't know I needed software for the transfer. A friend just told me the firewire port transfers everything. What kind of software or hardware would I need?

Tony,

First, your computer will have to be pretty strong! Still firewire, but then you have to buy additional plug-ins, like Cineforms Aspect HD (what I bought for $500.00) or another program. Adobe Premiere and most other editing programs will not capture HD without these plug-ins.

Also, remember that there are no HD DVD players really available yet. That is why I was suggesting SD video. Others will know more.

Hang in there!

Mike

You probably want to shoot interlaced (NTSC) so you capture 60 fields/second. If you shoot progressive, you only capture 30 frames/second (which would be really bad for slow motion).

In post, you want to look at slowing things down so that each field gets interlaced and becomes its own frame (instead of two fields getting deinterlaced into one frame). 1 second of 60i (29.97fps interlaced) would give you ~60 frames (at half the resolution of a progressive frame) per 2 seconds, at 50% speed.

I don't think Final Cut can do that (at least, it isn't immediately obvious to me). Haven't tried this in Vegas yet. Shake (a few thousand dollars) can do this. It's really quite simple, you shouldn't need a super expensive program to do it.


If you want the slow-motion to look slicker, there are techniques available to fake the in-between frames. Field blending is the simplest and works by dissolving between frames. The best and most expensive solution would be Boris' Optical Flow plug-in or the version of Optical Flow found in Shake 4 (very long render times!!).

2- If you shoot in high definition, it should make up for the resolution loss from shooting interlaced and de-interlacing as described above. Post production will be harder though.

3- All NTSC DV cameras, regardless of price, shoot at the same resolution which is 720 pixels wide by 480 high. Most in this price range will have a single CCD, or possibly 3 tiny ones. As long as you're going with good companies like Canon and Sony I don't think you'll see much of a difference in the amount of image detail.
In my experience, the Sony TRV22 is noticeably blurrier (lower resolution) than other consumer cameras. I think the higher-end models are what they're supposed to be.

The JY-HD10U I know shoots SD in 1/60 fps progressive too, which may be easier for you to use without additional software. This would be 60 full frames per second, not 60 half frames per second, and you could use a higher shutter speed also to help even more.

Is this true? I don't think so. AFAIK, it can shoot 30 frames per second in progressive mode, not 60.

I agree with Glenn about using interlaced for your application because there are 60 samples taken each second instead of only 30. For your application I'm assuming that you just want to clearly see what's happening in slow motion, and not create something "artsy." If so, then the plug-ins that Glenn mentions are probably not worth the investment.

Now theoretically, you could shoot with the Sony FX-1 in 1080i high definition mode and get a lot of motion data. Since the vertical resolution is more than twice that of SD DV, each 1/60 sec field could be downsampled to 720x480 and (theoretically) give you 60 progressive frames for each second. I say "theoretically" because I'm not sure how this would work from a software standpoint. The other problem is that the MPEG2 compression used by HDV is not supposed to be very good for fast motion.

Why don't you rent or borrow some of the cameras you're considering and do a few tests. I think this will be much more instructive for you than all the theories we're debating here :-)

Is this true? I don't think so. AFAIK, it can shoot 30 frames per second in progressive mode, not 60.


I am no expert on this and I may be wrong, but the owners manual for my JVC JY-HD10U, has the following information on page #21.

SUPPORTED FORMATS:

Horz. lines--704, Vert. lines--480, Aspect Ratio---16:9, Frames per Sec. (Rec)---60, Scan Mode---Progressive, Recording Mode---SD


HD is 30 fps, SD is 60 fps


Thanks,

Mike

Anytime you see 60fps, be it in specs, product lit or wherever, they're referring to 60 fields per second interlaced (60i). It's definitely confusing.

I still am confused, so help me out.

Book says:

HD 30fps/prog.
SD 60 fps/prog.
DV 60fps/Inter.

DV it says is, "The camera records signals in the interlace scan mode(half of 525 scanning lines at 1/60th of a second)

SD, it say is, "The camcorder records signals in the progressive scan mode, (525 scanning lines at 1/60th of a second at one time......The SD mode reduces flickering more effectively than recording in DV mode."

HD, it says is, "the camcorder records signals at 1/30th of a second for playback at one time."

What is it really?

thanks,

Mike

According to the Videomaker review of the JVC GR-HD1 (the consumer version of the JY-HD10U), it does shoot 60p SD:

"In SD mode, the camera shoots at the same resolution (480 lines), but shoots 60 progressive fps (60p) at a true 16:9 widescreen aspect ratio."

and

"We also shot some fast action video at 60 progressive fps in the SD mode. This video looked spectacular on the computer and gave us much more room to create dramatic super-slow motion effects that would not be possible at 60i (or even 30p)."

Basic editing software that can handle the footage the camera produces is also included.

(Videomaker Test Bench: JVC GR-HD1 Mini DV and HD Camcorder (http://www.videomaker.com/scripts/article_print.cfm?id=9578))

Thanks for all the information. I will try out a few of these camcorders and see how they work. The JVC GR-HD1 that Chris mentions sounds like it might be worth a try too! Thanks again!

I'm interested in shooting a tournament style poker game and I need some info on the hole card cam.

Does anyone know what kind of camera would work well for this purpose? I have no knowledge of lipstick cameras and so forth, so I could use any info you've got.


thanks,

THCK

Because of the work I am currently doing with the budget I have, I am wondering if anyone knows where to look for a used 3CCD camera. I have had access to and worked with a Sony PD-150 and would like something comparable. Any suggestions or experience with picking up used digicams would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx much,
Ramdas Lamb

For starters have a look at DVinfo's classified ads:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=16

Our sponsor B&H Photo also sells used equipment:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=2935

Hey folks, new guy here.

I've been doing DV videos with an old 1999 model sony camcorder, an old TRV 120 I think I bought new back then.

It's about time for a new camera and I need some help.

I really would like one with progressive scan, as 100% of my stuff is for playing on a computer and the interlacing has always given me fits, but I have a hard time justifying a $2000 camera for the amount of it I do.

As well a smaller camera might get me out taking helmet cam videos on my offroad bikes riding over jeep trail mountain passes and such.

Anyway, it seems I bought before the little spurt of consumer priced progressive scan cameras and I don't see any offered for $1000 or less. I don't even see interlaced or progressive in the specs of most of them.

What is the low end of the current progressive scan cameras out there?

What would be the best bet in looking for a used one? And is ebay the best place to look?

I may someday want to spend $3k on a camcorder but not now, if I did I would feel compelled to go out and use it enough to justify it. :)

Barring that, I use ulead media studio pro to edit, and would like the best info on getting the combing effects out of my videos.

The video is mostly recorded Svideo output from my computer screen through my video cards svga out port. Are there better capture devices for doing this than a DV cam?

Not many options for true progressive. You could probably find an old Optura but it has no 16:9(I believe.) I'd try buying a deinterlacing program. One that doesn't require buying After Effects first is DVFilmmaker. It interpolates only objects that move. Stationary portions of the picture maintain their original sharpness. It's a standalone program for $149.

As far as cameras are concerned, the newer models that do true progressive but cost quite a bit are the Canon XL2, Panasonic DVX100a and the JVC HD1/HD10.

I used to use a TRV110 digital8 camcorder, and it was a great camera for its price. The newer cameras are like two steps forwards and backwards, so you may not be gaining much if you upgrade. One thing that does suck about digital8 is that you can't play back your tapes if you don't have your camera anymore (it gets damaged or stolenor eventually breaks down). So that may be something to watch out for, and possibly give you an excuse to buy a new camera.

As far as progressive scan goes, you could use an adaptive de-interlace filter to make things into progressive (with a little loss in vertical resolution). The ideal solution would be to get a camera that shoots progressive... the DVC30 from Panasonic does it and its over two thousand. There may be cheaper cameras.

2- The video is mostly recorded Svideo output from my computer screen through my video cards svga out port. Are there better capture devices for doing this than a DV cam?
There are software capture programs available such as Camtasia. If you're making web tutorials, Macromedia Captivate or Breeze looks really interesting.

You could look for one of these:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=31187

I don't follow these less expensive models very carefully, but I think the 350 has been replaced with a new version.

The Panasonic GS400 has a kind of frame mode, which isn't completely progressive, but not interlaced too.
That one costs about I don't know, 1400 dollars new or so? But maybe you can find a used one?
Maybe put a demand in our Private Classifieds board.
Good luck.

Well in looking around I think I might as well go up to the 1500-2000 dollar range, there are some options for progressive CCD's in that range that should do the trick.

I'd only regret it I think if I went with a used 30 frames per second lower res camera that's already a few years old.